Public health emergencies—ranging from pandemics and natural disasters to biological threats—pose serious dangers not just to human lives but also to economic stability and national security. While federal agencies and executive branches usually dominate the emergency response spotlight, Nigeria’s State Houses of Assembly are critical stakeholders with immense power to shape outcomes. Their ability to legislate, fund, and oversee health-related measures makes them indispensable in building an effective and inclusive public health preparedness system.

Yet, their potential remains largely untapped. Strengthening legislative engagement at the state level can significantly improve Nigeria’s ability to respond swiftly and effectively to public health threats.

Legislative Authority in Public Health Crises
By constitutional design, Nigeria’s state legislatures hold significant authority to shape public health systems. Their legislative responsibilities allow them to:

• Pass and amend health-related laws to address evolving threats.

• Approve state budgets, including special allocations for emergency health responses.

• Establish legal frameworks to coordinate state ministries, agencies, and local authorities.

• Authorise emergency powers such as quarantine, isolation, or disease surveillance protocols.

Just as crucial is their oversight role—through committees and hearings, lawmakers can track the effectiveness of emergency responses, audit spending on health interventions, and hold health officials accountable.

State legislators are also essential community connectors. Their proximity to constituents equips them to identify local vulnerabilities, advocate for targeted interventions, and promote public awareness and compliance with health directives.

Current Barriers to Legislative Involvement
Despite their constitutional relevance, state lawmakers face several challenges that weaken their engagement in emergency preparedness:

1. Limited Public Health Literacy:
   Many legislators lack the technical knowledge required to understand epidemiology, emergency protocols, and the systemic complexities of health preparedness. This results in uninformed policy-making, budget delays, and resistance to data-driven decisions.

2. Outdated Legal Frameworks:
   Many state public health laws are obsolete and lack the provisions needed for modern threats. The absence of well-defined emergency protocols or inter-agency roles leads to inefficiencies during crises.

3. Political Interference:
   Public health can become a political pawn, especially in states with fraught executive-legislative relationships. Political rivalries may delay critical legislation or provoke distrust in public responses.

4. Lack of Inclusive Engagement:
   State health ministries often neglect to include legislators in early planning stages, leaving lawmakers sidelined and less committed to implementation.

What Legislatures Can Do: Key Opportunities for Engagement

1. Strengthening Legal Preparedness:
   State legislatures can close legal gaps by enacting laws that:

   • Establish state-level Public Health Emergency Operations Centres (EOCs).

   • Define isolation and quarantine procedures within constitutional limits.

   • Provide statutory protections for health workers and first responders.

2. Securing Emergency Health Financing:
   Legislatures play a critical role in budgeting. They can:

   • Advocate for dedicated emergency health funds.

   • Mandate timely disbursement mechanisms during crises.

   • Introduce independent audits of emergency spending.

3. Oversight and Accountability:
   Through regular hearings and audits, lawmakers can ensure that emergency plans:

   • Move from paper to practice.

   • Include community-specific risk assessments.

   • Are regularly updated and tested through simulations.

4. Community-Specific Preparedness:
   Legislators can ensure that emergency plans consider:

   • Vulnerable populations such as women, children, and persons with disabilities.

   • Language and cultural differences, particularly in rural or marginalised areas.

   • Unique health risks across different constituencies.

Strategies to Deepen Legislative Engagement

To enhance the role of State Houses of Assembly in emergency preparedness, the following strategies are vital:

1. Capacity Building

• Workshops and Trainings: Provide regular education sessions on public health systems, health law, and global best practices.

• Technical Briefs: Distribute user-friendly reports on emerging threats, highlighting legislative responsibilities.

• Exchange Programmes: Facilitate knowledge-sharing between states and with national institutions.

2. Institutionalising Participation

• Standing Committees on Health Emergencies: Establish legislative committees specifically dedicated to public health and emergency preparedness.

• Legal Reporting Obligations: Enforce laws that require regular health updates from ministries to legislative committees.

3. Executive-Legislative Synergy

• Joint Planning Sessions: Include legislators in emergency response planning forums.

• Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs): Clarify roles and responsibilities between state health ministries and legislative committees.

• Early Involvement: Engage lawmakers from the planning phase—not just when bills need to be passed.

4. Civic and Media Engagement

• Civil Society Partnerships: Encourage advocacy groups to push for legislative transparency and responsiveness.

• Media Campaigns: Educate the public on the legislative role in health preparedness, building pressure for accountability.

• Digital Tools: Introduce online dashboards to help lawmakers track emergency indicators in real time.

• GIS Mapping: Use technology to visualise risk zones and prioritise legislative focus in high-vulnerability areas.

Lessons from Nigeria and Beyond

During the COVID-19 pandemic, legislative responses varied by state. In Lagos, for instance, lawmakers supported executive action by enacting legal frameworks for lockdowns and contact tracing. In contrast, other states lagged, with delays in passing laws or approving health budgets, resulting in sluggish responses.

Internationally, proactive legislatures played critical roles. In the Philippines, Congress passed the “Bayanihan to Heal as One Act”, while local assemblies adapted it for local enforcement. In the United States, post-COVID reforms at the state level rebalanced power by defining legislative oversight mechanisms and limiting unchecked executive authority.

Measuring Legislative Effectiveness in Emergencies

To track the role of State Houses in health emergencies, a Public Health Emergency Legislative Engagement Index can be introduced. Key metrics may include:

• Number of emergency-related laws passed or revised.

• Frequency of legislative briefings from the Ministry of Health.

• Timeliness of budget approvals for health emergencies.

• Oversight activities, including committee hearings and published reports.

• Legislative-led constituency outreach or preparedness initiatives.

Conclusion: Legislatures as Pillars of Health Security

As Nigeria strengthens its capacity to respond to public health crises, state legislators must be treated as key partners—not bystanders. Empowering State Houses of Assembly with knowledge, tools, and inclusive planning roles will ensure more responsive, equitable, and resilient health systems.

Building robust legislative involvement is not just good governance—it is essential for saving lives, preserving economic stability, and promoting social trust in times of crisis. As future emergencies loom, Nigeria must tap into the full potential of its state legislatures to ensure no community is left behind.